Christian Fundamentalism

[Clodhopper]

Jester: Well, it's got me reading the Bible again, which I've been meaning to do for some time but somehow never got round to, so some good has come out of all this!

Hey ho. We'll know the truth when we die - and if we don't find the truth when we die, we won't care because we won't exist!

And since we seem to be about the same sort of age, if we both pop our clogs at the same sort of time and end up in a queue at the Pearly Gates, consider yourself challenged to a friendly spiritual beer drinking competition!

[Ted]

Good grief miss a few days and look what happens.

First of all I've never refused to answer a question from jester. In many cases he simply doesn't like the answer.

Secondly I've never said the Bible does not teach truth because it does. However, something does not have to be historically accurate to be true. That is simply faulty thinking.

If one does not read any document from the point of view of the writer one adds in their own interpretation. It cannot be otherwise. Since the Bible is a document written by many authors in an ancient style called midrash it must be read as such or one is interpreting it the way they want. The Bible must also be read with a little common sense otherwise it does become a fairy tale.

As to the question of Jesus, I have answered that but once again some don't like the answer. So I will answer again. Jesus is the messiah, the anointed one of God. He was an eastern Mediterranean Jewish peasant born to a woman named Mary and perhaps his father was Joseph. There was some doubt about that at the time and that is why he was called a mamzer by the locals. A mamzer was a person of questionable parentage. He grew up and became an apocalyptic prophet, an itinerant preacher, a healer, and exorcist, a spirit person etc. He was and is the redeemer of the world. Is he God? I do not believe that the very human Jesus was God but God was manifest in him. In this way we see God incarnate in Jesus. But here we enter the realm of the divine again. To go and/or say anything further is to enter the realm of the divine and we do not have the language for that. I do believe that he enjoyed a very specific and special relationship with God in which his [Jesus] will became one with the will of God.

The question as to whether is is the saviour of the world once again enters the realm of the divine. The concept of the trinity is a metaphor for that which we cannot grasp or understand. As a metaphor I can accept the phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". I cannot and would not dare to presume to be able to say anything further.

This Jesus was crucified and some time after his death the Easter experience occurred. It was an experience in which his followers experienced the reality of his presence as the Christ the anointed one of God.

For those who think there mere human words and brain can go any further I'm happy for them though I believe they are deluding themselves. God is so much greater and so far beyond human language that all we are left with is metaphor.

As for the issue of homosexuality, jester will rationalize wearing clothing of different fibers but consider such rationalization when it comes to homosexuality impossible. He simply wants his cake and eat it too. One cannot have it both ways. He is simply trying to make the Bible say what he wants it to say but denies it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Oops I did forget to respond to the comment about rejecting the doctrines and dogmas of the past. In most cases it was the best they could do with the knowledge and conceptualization ability they had. I don't reject it per se but simply update it bases on our present knowledge. Do I think it makes any difference to God? Not one iota. Humans can only do what they can do.

I have no problems whatsoever reciting the creeds of the church as I see them as metaphorical and from that point of view no one can do any better though we could no doubt change the wording; but why bother? They are meaningful as they are.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Magic Rhino]

I have been studying various religions since my teens. Christianity, Islam, and Jewish religions have a lot in common, especially with the early history of their various religions.

Another thing I have discovered is that the stories in the bible are also very similar to stories found on ancient inscriptions. For example Noah and the flood could be based on stories of the floods that happened elsewhere. The area where these religions were developed is not prone to flooding, but there are archaeology evidence of flooding in other areas that caused a migration of people into the area, who may have brought the stories with them. These stories that travelled with migrating tribes, might have been recorded by oral recorders. This still happens in parts of Africa today. Some of the stories may have changed with this means of recording.

BBC in the UK compared some of the facts told in the bible with archaeology evidence, and found some contradictions or dates that did not quite correspond. This is similar to the facts recorded in Koran or the Torah. There is also the issue with the translation of the various books from Arabic, Latin, Greek and other languages used to make records at the time. Some words where not in the other languages or the facts were not quite translated as originally intended. There is also evidence that shows that others also wrote passages that were not included in the various religious books, but also relevant to the history of the religions.

Now please don't get me wrong I am not a religion basher and feel that religion has an important role in our lives as it teaches us morals and the respect for others. I also believe we should all have some beliefs that help us live our life. What is upsetting is that religions has cause so much of a rift between families, communities and tribes. Some of this is caused by some fundamentalist, who have taken their respective holy books literally and rather than some rules we can live our lives by.

Unfortunately the fundamentalist who follow their respective religions that do teach a good life with good rules, tend to get tarred with the same brush as those fundamentalist who use their religions to blow up people. Long live the fundamentalists who help us live a better life.

Boy I should avoid these discussions as I can get carried away.

Enjoy the rest of the day.

[Ted]

Magic:-6

Some excellent points.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[AussiePam]

Ted;820427 wrote: Good grief miss a few days and look what happens.

,......... I've never said the Bible does not teach truth because it does. However, something does not have to be historically accurate to be true. That is simply faulty thinking.

If one does not read any document from the point of view of the writer one adds in their own interpretation. It cannot be otherwise. Since the Bible is a document written by many authors in an ancient style called midrash it must be read as such or one is interpreting it the way they want. The Bible must also be read with a little common sense otherwise it does become a fairy tale.

As to the question of Jesus, I have answered that but once again some don't like the answer. So I will answer again. Jesus is the messiah, the anointed one of God. He was an eastern Mediterranean Jewish peasant born to a woman named Mary and perhaps his father was Joseph. There was some doubt about that at the time and that is why he was called a mamzer by the locals. A mamzer was a person of questionable parentage. He grew up and became an apocalyptic prophet, an itinerant preacher, a healer, and exorcist, a spirit person etc. He was and is the redeemer of the world. Is he God? I do not believe that the very human Jesus was God but God was manifest in him. In this way we see God incarnate in Jesus. But here we enter the realm of the divine again. To go and/or say anything further is to enter the realm of the divine and we do not have the language for that. I do believe that he enjoyed a very specific and special relationship with God in which his [Jesus] will became one with the will of God.

The question as to whether is is the saviour of the world once again enters the realm of the divine. The concept of the trinity is a metaphor for that which we cannot grasp or understand. As a metaphor I can accept the phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". I cannot and would not dare to presume to be able to say anything further.

This Jesus was crucified and some time after his death the Easter experience occurred. It was an experience in which his followers experienced the reality of his presence as the Christ the anointed one of God.

For those who think there mere human words and brain can go any further I'm happy for them though I believe they are deluding themselves. God is so much greater and so far beyond human language that all we are left with is metaphor.



Shalom

Ted:-6


I have been following this thread but so far have made no comment. I now want to say that I completely agree with what Ted has said. I would not dare to presume that I know all there is to know about God, and that how I read bits of the Bible is the only possible way to read them. To me, this would be the sin of pride or hubris, the sin that - in the old metaphor - got us kicked out of Paradise in the first place.

However, I do sometimes wish that I could see everything in clear black and white - maybe one day I shall know, even as I am known. Until then... I'll continue to try and struggle towards the light.

[Ted]

AussiePam:-6

Thanks. I think we all wish we could know more about everything. That is why we continue to study and search in the hope that we can learn even a little more.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Magic Rhino]

Something I forgot to mention in the post above.

If Jesus was around today, we would treat him as a trouble maker and possible lock him up for inciting a crowd. He was certainly anti-establish, imagine the field day the media would have. I wonder if Christianity would survive if was developed now.

Enjoy the rest of the day

[AussiePam]

Ted;820542 wrote: AussiePam:-6

Thanks. I think we all wish we could know more about everything. That is why we continue to study and search in the hope that we can learn even a little more.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Interesting points MagicRhino.

Ted, I spent some time with an Anglican religious order and read and studied all the classic texts and more besides. For me, in the end, these started to get in the way. They became some kind of academic end in themselves, another form of chattering. So I eventually walked away back into the silence. Searching, though - yes and hopefully being open to receiving more light.

[theia]

AussiePam;820548 wrote: Interesting points MagicRhino.

Ted, I spent some time with an Anglican religious order and read and studied all the classic texts and more besides. For me, in the end, these started to get in the way. They became some kind of academic end in themselves, another form of chattering. So I eventually walked away back into the silence. Searching, though - yes and hopefully being open to receiving more light.


Beautifully expressed, Pammie...

Over the past 25 years I have surrounded myself with books in my search for God. I won't deny their helpfulness or their role in my understanding, but, ultimately, I know that my "answers" and the end of my search resides in the silence of my heart. As I see it, and to be fair to us all, this is surely the only place God could be...

[Ted]

theia:-6

Well put. Yes, I do enjoy the academic side of things but you are correct, ultimately what matters is in the heart and our relationship with the divine.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Tigerlily]

I've read all the preceding posts and nobody has said the word 'faith'. Trying to prove the truth of the bible after all these centuries is a complete waste of time. It should be taken as an allegory. References which plainly apply to a primitive society living in a desert (and which usually involve the repression of women one way or another) should be discounted in the modern world on the basis of common sense.

I'm a practising member of the Church of England, very moderate, and at its very best it can be a magnificent provider of social capital, something that is lacking in our fragmented society. One thing Jester said which struck a chord with me was that he was brought up to put others first. What a better world it would be if we all did that.

Our Vicar brought up Magic Rhino's point about the probably reception of Jesus should he appear now, and pointed out that, as a member of the clergy, he'd be one of Jesus' chief accusers. A most amusing paradox.

[Ted]

Tigerlily:-6

The word translated as "faith" should be translated as "trust". It is not about correct belief but about trusting in the divine or God, if you will.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[AussiePam]

Faith, hope and love.

Absolutely.

As to the historical time choice for Jesus' time on earth, I guess the full answer to that is another piece of knowledge we don't possess. It was raised, very interestingly in the musical (which by the way I liked) Jesus Christ Superstar.

:-6

[Ted]

AussiePam:-6

I liked that musical as well.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Clodhopper]

Now see, I have long thought that the intelligence of man has not changed, why is it that we assume man was less smart ‘Back then’ than we are now? Our present day knowledge, although advanced in technical fields has not increased in ‘intelligence’ or ‘ability to reason’.


Hi there . I think you and Ted actually agree (well, mostly!) on this one - it's a basis of the study of history that human nature has not changed since recorded history began - you have to go back to Cro-Magnon or something (not sure what the latest is in this field) before you get a change in human intelligence. However, language does change and grow. It's a good question whether a human concept can exist before the words to describe it. Thus, for example, not having a word like "electricity" available to them meant humans before the C19th were limited in their ability to understand and discuss lightning.

It's not lack of intelligence, it's lack of physical knowledge.

[Clodhopper]

Jester: Not off the top of my head - don't know the Bible well enough.

chuckle. Anyway, I suspect you would argue that the Bible version or description was the correct one! A lot of the time there isn't really a conflict anyway! So for example (thought of an example, though I'm sure there are better ones), we might say that a rain of frogs is caused by a tornado passing over a pond where there are a lot of frogs, sucking them up and then later they rain back down on startled passers by - the old Jews said it was God, not knowing about the tornado bit, and the frogs just fell out of the sky. My interpretation would say that God made the tornado pass over the pond at that particular time - superior knowledge, nothing to do with intelligence.

Not perhaps the best example, but the best I can do at short notice.

[Ted]

jester:-6

I can appreciate that post and the spirit in which it was given. Thanks.

Yes, family is more important than the net. No question or doubt here. Hope you enjoyed it very much.

I don't have time to respond to all of it here, right now, as I have to leave for Nanaimo shortly. My ocean cruise for the day. LOL

However, if I have failed to answer a question, it may have been overlooked in our lengthy posts so please simply ask it again and I will respond.

I will respond to two points. The first one on salvation. I have never implied that all one needs to do is good works. There is one other factor that is important and the Bible is very clear on that. That is the factor of motivation. God judges the heart. One does not gain brownie points just by doing good if his motivation is not the right one. I do a good deed because it needs to be done. I feed the hungry not just because I want a point on my list but I feed the hungry because s/he is hungry and needs the assistance. I do it because it is the right thing to do.

The second one clodhopper has dealt with. Man is no more intelligent now than he was 2000 years ago. The difference is that our fund of knowledge is increased by a factor of thousands. We simply know much more and as a result our conceptualization ability has increased. Now we know that epilepsy is not caused by demon possession. Further, it is God who has allowed us to gain that knowledge.

The rest later.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Clodhopper]

Jester: Human beings try to make sense of the world around us and the events that occur in it. Our attempt to do so scientifically are often wrong at first, but over time and with lots of very clever people thinking about things we get there - so with nuclear power we developed theories, tested them, discarded some as a result, worked on others, discarded some of them when the data said they were wrong and eventually ended up with a bomb and after that electricity generated by nuclear power.

The Bible we have now is (as you know) not the first Bible to exist. It was written in Aramaic first, translated into Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then English all by some of the greatest minds of their time (ok, I may be wrong in some details, but you get the picture...) and bits have been left out by various church councils because they didn't seem to fit...

Remarkably like the scientific process in some ways. Sometimes we can say that an event is perhaps not so miraculous as it at first appeared because we now know (to take your example as an example) that the Red Sea becomes a trickle on occasion - but that doesn't mean the story isn't true, or that the lesson we can learn from it isn't valid - it just means that the incident did not occur in the way the original writer thought it did. Human error. God remains perfect.

It means the Bible is not always literally true - we have always interpreted it, we always will, and since we are not capable of perfection, there will always be misinterpretations and mistakes in our understanding of it.

Chuckle. Not least by copyists. Ever heard of the Bible published in the C17th over here where the bloke doing the typesetting missed out the word "not" in the commandment about adultery? (I've always suspected he did it on purpose:wah:)

[american parable]

I've come late into this discussion, but reading what you folks have written, makes me wonder about myself and what it is that I do believe.

[Clodhopper]

american parable;824689 wrote: I've come late into this discussion, but reading what you folks have written, makes me wonder about myself and what it is that I do believe.


Don't panic.

And remember that God is love.

[Ted]

jester:-6

When I realize that all we have to define or describe the divine it only serves to increase my awe and my amazement.

I have never said that the stories in the Bible were a fable. Those are your words.

Yes God does want us to learn and know. However, we can only learn and know to the extent of our knowledge and conceptualization abilities. John 16:12-15 clearly indicates that we are not always ready to know things.

God's desire as expressed in Christianity and all of the other great faiths of the world is that we become transformed. That we learn new ways of being in the world and give up the old. It is about our relationship both with God and with our fellow humans.

I think that Clodhopper has expressed quite well the nature of science. It is a self correcting discipline. With that in mind both science and medicine do not agree with you on the nature and origins of homosexuality. It is now understood to be a given and not a choice. Most folks would not choose to subject themselves to the abuse they receive.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

I notice in the Google ads "The Church that Jesus Built". There is another one claiming to have the only correct way to believe. LOL

In Victoria we have "The Church of Truth" as well. ???????

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

Jester;822340 wrote: I get your meaning now.

I agree to that in some things. But when we discount large portions of scripture and change a miracle into metaphor, because our 'intelligence' has determined that the miracle cannot happen, then we reject the power of God to act supernaturally in his own creation, granted it takes faith and an ability to understand that there most certainly is another demension of spirit living among us.

It reminds me of the story of the school teacher who had the kids tell of thier summer vacation at the beginning of the new school year, when it was Johnnys turn he got up and told excitedly of his vacation bible school, and was particularly excited about the miracle of how God parted the Red Sea for the nation of Israel at the beginning of the exodus. The teacher of course being the enlightened one of knowledge explained to Johnny that it wasnt such an amazing miracle, and that science shows us that at the time of year the bible mentions the Exodus the Red Sea may have only been a trickle of water... Johnny of course gets even more excited and tells the other students how much more amazing God is, the teacher confused, asks Johnhny why? Johnny then explains how the Armies of Pharoah were destroyed by just a little bit of water.

Science attempts to discount a lot of biblical interpretation, and Im really not amazed by that, I am amazed when science thinks they have the answer and then some new event or discovery comes out and shows otherwise and how science never quite gets around to discounting its own errors.


Actually science IMO adds a lot of credence to some of the stories in the bible-parting of the red sea-possibly the result of an earthquake-the plagues of egypt do have logical explanations, the flood there is plenty of evidence of cities under the sea -something did happen, one theory I have seen is that he flood was when the atlabntic finally broke through in to the Mediterranean drowning the civilisations that lived there. Bible stories are how an ancient people might describe events like earthquakes, ecological disasters (people overfarmed because they didn't know any better and destroyed their environment, mankind is still doing that in the present day. ) volcanic eruptions etc etc.

Does the fact that you can find logical explanations for some of the events in the bible make them any less real?

Just to play devils advocate there are Two ways of looking at it. Dismiss the hand of god out of hand because you can now explain what is happening. Or, perhaps, we know know how god did it and does accepting the scientific explanation detract from a belief in god? If god gave us the intellect to work it out perhaps that is what we are supposed to do.

If you have to believe the bible is the literal word of god and must be accepted word for word as gospel to be a true christian then fundamentalism is a load of cobblers.

At the time Christianity was adopted in rome there was a massive climate change going on with crops failing and unusual weather patterns for no apparent reason. a religion that promised live after death must have been very attractive. The strictures against suicide are rather clever don't you think? live is lousy let's get to heaven early you can just see how some people would think. commit suicide and go straight to hell, subtle that.

christian ritual borrowed much from the worship of mithras, the early church leaders sat down and decided which bits of the bible they were going to use. How anyone can believe the bible is the word of god with each decision and translation down through the years guided by his hand is beyond my comprehension. To be blunt it is a silly belief imo.

Why don't you all just believe in god and stop arguing about it? really is it worth while coming to blows over it. If JC came back I bet the first thing he would say is stop being so silly which would probably have him crucified all over again. Who are the Pharisees in the 21st century AD? dare I suggest the fundamentalists?

[Ted]

gmc:-6

Some very good points. It is well known that the editors and redactors have done a good job at presenting us with the Bible we have today. It is also well known that the early church made some changes in the scriptures, not I think, to be dishonest, but to clarify what the early church had come to believe be the time of the adaptations. None of this detracts from the wisdom found in the Bible which in many cases is still valuable today.

It has been determined that the story of the Exodus probably arose out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. The story as written is a myth designed to teach truths about how they saw God. This not only comes from the western scholars but from Jewish scholars as well. A good deal of the Bible is midrash, a term which jest doesn't like but nonetheless a part of the very production of the Bible itself. There are of course some kernels of history spread throughout the Bible. That to is a fact.

When dealing with such characters as Abraham, Issac, Jacob. Moses etc. we are into the realm of prehistory and there is no evidence that such characters ever existed. This is not to deny they did exist but simply to state that there is no evidence.

These are the Jewish sacred stories; midrash.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

I just checked on "The Truth About the Rapture" by Robert Barbaria. Another one who has the ultimate knowledge of the truth. LOL There are so many of these guys around that it is in fact a detriment and deterrent to any faith. If it were "The Truth About the Rupture" I would suggest he visit his physician. LOL

Shalom

Ted:wah:

[Clodhopper]

Ted: Yeah, amazing, isn't it.

One clear and obvious way to avoid some of these dangerous people is to remember that if they are making money out of you, they are frauds. If they have prime time tv slots, a fleet of limosines, expensive suits and haircuts they are frauds. Talk to the parish priest, who is on a miserable wage and cares for his flock - not the other way round.

(Not that you need this advice - I'm just thinking aloud)

[gmc]

posted by ted

Some very good points. It is well known that the editors and redactors have done a good job at presenting us with the Bible we have today. It is also well known that the early church made some changes in the scriptures, not I think, to be dishonest, but to clarify what the early church had come to believe be the time of the adaptations. None of this detracts from the wisdom found in the Bible which in many cases is still valuable today.




Moot point I think. They were also taking out those bits that they thought might cause them problems in a cynical rewriting to make sure they kept control. if you control the gates to heaven the power you have over believers is immense. Although best we agree to disagree since debating it is unlikely to change either of our viewpoints.

[xyz]

WonderWendy3;779516 wrote: When you see that...(Christian Fundamentalism) what do you think of? Can you explain it to me?
There is no such thing as Christian fundamentalism. One is either a Christian, or one is not. Those who take a political stance and say that they have backing from Christian precepts are misguided or lying. Those who say that belief in creation is six days is essential, are misguided, or lying.

The Christian is one who is justified before God by faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross. Those who are justified are changed in their motivation, and behave differently after conversion. That is because the convert hands over control of his/her life to God. People who try to change society with laws and preaching against abortion etc. are not going to make people Christians that way. They will just put people under strains that they do not have the motivation to cope with.

The YECer (Young Earth Creationist) makes an issue out of a non-issue. Christians can believe in 6-day creation or not, it does not matter at all- unless they are scientists!

If someone talks a lot about politics or against evolution, we can be quite sure that such a person is not a Christian.

[Ted]

xyz:-6

In one sense I agree with you. Christians are Christians. A Christian is one who follows in the footsteps of one Jesus of Nazareth.

On the other hand I have to disagree there is no such thing as a Christian fundamentalist. Within the Christian faith we have some 22 000 various denominations. Many of them claim to have the only handle on the ultimate truth. These denominations span the whole range from extreme left to extreme right if I can use those terms. The extremists are the problem on both ends. On the extreme left we have those who take a purely humanistic non spiritual view of Christianity whereas on the other end we have the like of Pat Robertson or even further right Fred Phelps and his God hates fags crap.

If you wish to talk about right belief you have a problem with some 22 000 views. Which one is correct? Of course everyone knows it is mine. LOL Christianity is not about right belief but about a developing, transforming relationship with God.

All of the world's great faiths have their extremists not just Christianity.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[xyz]

Ted;842477 wrote: Within the Christian faith we have some 22 000 various denominations.
Denominations are non-Christian, and most of those in them are non-Christians. Almost all in the USA who claim to be Christians are not Christians.

[Ted]

xyz:-6

Oh???!!!

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;842488 wrote: Denominations are non-Christian, and most of those in them are non-Christians. Almost all in the USA who claim to be Christians are not Christians.


Might I ask which particular sect make up the few true Christians?

[gmc]

xyz;842488 wrote: Denominations are non-Christian, and most of those in them are non-Christians. Almost all in the USA who claim to be Christians are not Christians.


That's what springs to mind when you see the term christian fundamentalist- or islamic fundamentalist come to that. Some demented nutter believing in an imaginary friend ready to condemn anyone that doesn't believe exactly as they do and if given any opportunity would force everyone to worship as they do and go to church each sunday to thank god they are not llke everybody else.

Catholic slaughtered protestant because they were heretics, protestant slaughtered catholic because they were catholic (most of the fundamentalist sects are protestant) sunni would slaughter shia for the same reason.

Since most of the christian fundamentalists are not of the true catholic faith they are all going to hell anyway just as the catholics are going to hell for their idolatory.

God forbid any of then should take jesus at his word and love their fellow man. Course maybe that seems a bit gay nowadays maybe it should be changed to humankind but that would imply women are as good as men when everybody knows they were made by a bit of adam and so are subservient to man.

[xyz]

Bryn Mawr;842522 wrote: Might I ask which particular sect make up the few true Christians?
The argument in #134 is on topic.

[Clodhopper]

Oh, I'd call them all Christian, just rather loopy. I'm not sure God is as concerned by details of semantic interpretation as we end up being with (as Dean Swift put it) our Big-enders and our Little-enders: in Lilliput the religious factions were split over whether to open their boiled eggs at the big or little end. Surely the point is not to get so obsessed with minor detail that we forget the important stuff, ie God is Love. Love God and treat your fellow humans with with the respect you would wish to receive.

[Accountable]

xyz;842466 wrote: There is no such thing as Christian fundamentalism. One is either a Christian, or one is not. Those who take a political stance and say that they have backing from Christian precepts are misguided or lying. Those who say that belief in creation is six days is essential, are misguided, or lying.



The Christian is one who is justified before God by faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross. Those who are justified are changed in their motivation, and behave differently after conversion. That is because the convert hands over control of his/her life to God. People who try to change society with laws and preaching against abortion etc. are not going to make people Christians that way. They will just put people under strains that they do not have the motivation to cope with.



The YECer (Young Earth Creationist) makes an issue out of a non-issue. Christians can believe in 6-day creation or not, it does not matter at all- unless they are scientists!



If someone talks a lot about politics or against evolution, we can be quite sure that such a person is not a Christian.
So no politician can ever claim to be a Christian?



I'm never comfortable declaring anyone "not a Christian" once they claim to be. I'm also wary of anyone so prideful as to make such a declaration. The best I can hope for is to live my own life in a reasonable facsimile of what I understand a Christian life should be.

[xyz]

Accountable;842572 wrote: So no politician can ever claim to be a Christian?
Not as part of the political 'package', no.



I'm never comfortable declaring anyone "not a Christian" once they claim to be.
There cannot be a more unChristian comment than that, from anyone who has read Christ's words.

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;842550 wrote: The argument in #134 is on topic.


but does not answer the question I asked.

[xyz]

Bryn Mawr;842966 wrote: but does not answer the question I asked.
Ah, well. At least we're agreed on #134.

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;842992 wrote: Ah, well. At least we're agreed on #134.


Where do you get that from? I asked for an answer, I didn't give agreement.

[xyz]

Bryn Mawr;843041 wrote: Where do you get that from?
So you disagree?

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;843059 wrote: So you disagree?


Where do you get that from? I asked for an answer, I didn't disagree.

[xyz]

Bryn Mawr;843071 wrote: I asked for an answer
Funny, so did I.